**MORE ABOUT THE ILLUSION OF MATTER AND GRAVITY**

**©**

**Edward R. Close Novemver 12, 2016**

*something*at the quantum and atomic levels of physical reality. But, just what

__is__that

*something,*and why is it spinning? Before I attempt to answer these important questions, I’d like to put this into the proper historical perspective: It is a basic principle of relativity that inertial and gravitational mass are actually one and the same thing. Einstein called this the “Equivalence Principal’. This principal, which was posited by the Austrian polymath Ernst Mach (1838 – 1916), inspired Einstein to think in broader relativistic terms, but exactly how inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent has never been fully explained, nor has it been explainable, – until now.

The limitations of our physical senses and extensions
of them create the illusion of solid matter, but that illusion fades away as soon
as we try to precisely locate the separate entities that we have conceptualized
as atoms, protons, neutrons and quarks. As we try to isolate these ‘particles’,
seeking to find the ultimate substance of reality, they simply slip through our
fingers, and any other net we can devise, leaving us with ephemeral ‘massless’
bits of conceptual nothingness we conceptualize as gluons and bosons. But, by recognizing
that there is a ‘bottom’ to quantum reality, and applying the Calculus of
Dimensional Distinctions to quantized reality, defining the true quantum unit
(TRUE), and solving the resulting Diophantine equations, we see beyond the
illusion of solid matter and we find that reality actually depends entirely upon
the existence of a third form of that spinning

*something*that cannot be directly measured as mass nor energy, but that is*equivalent*to mass and energy at the quantum level. That*something*is what we have called*gimmel*. With the discovery of gimmel and the hyper-dimensionality of space, time and consciousness, we are now at long last in a position to explain what mass and gravity really are.
The Equivalence Principle says that resistance to
motion, whether it is measured as the force it takes to blast the mass of a
rocket from the surface of Planet Earth, or the force it takes to overcome the resistance
to motion due to the spinning of the substance of reality at the quantum level,
is really the same thing. How can this be? To see the truth behind this, we
must reverse the reductionist approach of particle physics and abandon the
illusion that reality is separated into ‘particles’ at the quantum level, and
see the universe as an integrated multi-dimensional reality. This is hard for
us to do because for all practical purposes, objects can be considered to be quite
separate on the macro level, but, if objects at the quantum level are not
separate, objects at the macro level are not really separate either. The shift
to a multi-dimensional understanding of reality requires a deeper understanding
of relativity and quantum physics, and in particular a deeper understanding of
the Equivalence Principle.

We have to expand our conceptualization of reality to
include consciousness, space, time, mass and energy as the real, measurable parameters
of multi-dimensional distinctions of extent and content mathematically related by
volumetric equivalence at the quantum level. This means extending the
mathematical description of reality into dimensions beyond the three dimensions
of space and one of time. Efforts in this direction were made by German
physicists Theodore Kaluza and Wolfgang Pauli, Swedish physicist Oscar Klein, and
others. Kaluza, who was encouraged by Einstein, expanded the general relativity
model into five dimensions and was successful in unifying gravity and
electromagnetism. Klein, who developed a 5-D model independently, had some
success combining quantum theory with his five-D model. However, these efforts
were eclipsed in mainstream physics by easier pathways to progress by
developing relativity and quantum theory separately, and the 5-D effort, known
as the Kaluza-Klein model is generally considered to be simply a forerunner of modern
string theory.

Hyper-dimensional relativistic quantum theory never really
got off the ground because of multiple conceptual errors arising from the
inappropriate application of infinitesimal calculus to quantum reality and the resulting
lack of development of an appropriate mathematical approach. In order to
explain how we can avoid these conceptual errors and get back on the right
track, I will have to speak in terms that may seem very abstract to the average
reader. Fortunately, the concepts are simple, and it may actually be the
well-educated scientist who will have a more of a problem here because he/she
will have to unlearn some of the standard dogma of conventional mathematical
physics taught in our colleges and universities today.

I don’t want to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I want
to assure you that I am not saying that all of the math and physics developed
since the paradigm shifts of relativity and quantum mechanics in the first half
of the last century are worthless or meaningless. Not at all. But, due to
narrow professional specialization and academic departmentalization, the direct
relationship between mathematics and physical reality has been misunderstood
and almost completely lost.

Philosophically, most mainstream scientists align themselves
with logical positivism, roughly defined as any
system of thought that confines itself to the factual data of experience and
excludes

*a priori*or metaphysical speculation. This approach was articulated by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857). The basic precepts of positivism are (1) that all factual knowledge is based on the “positive” data of experience and (2) that beyond the realm of facts is that of pure logic and pure mathematics. The position of Danish physicist Niels Bohr, sometimes called the father of quantum physics, exemplifies this position. He said:
“Physics
is to be regarded not so much as the
study of something

*a priori*given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience… There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... In this respect our task must be to account for such experience in a manner independent of individual subjective judgement and therefore objective in the sense that it can be unambiguously communicated in ordinary human language.”
These quotes are found in “The
Philosophy of Niels Bohr” by Aage Petersen, in the

*Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists*Vol. 19, No. 7 (September 1963), ”*The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery”*(2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and in “*Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object”*(2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291.
There is much to be said for the positivist point of
view, especially in experimental physics. Of course, wild, undisciplined speculation
should be avoided because,

*while there may be an infinite number of ways to be wrong, there is arguably only one way to be right*. Strict adherence to this approach, however, would virtually eliminate theoretical physics and severely limit the advancement of science. Contrast Bohr, for example with Einstein, who said in his 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture:
“If, then, it is true
that the axiomatic foundation of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from
experience but must be freely invented, may we ever hope to find the right way?
Furthermore, does this right way exist anywhere other than in our illusions? May
we hope to be guided safely by experience at all, if there exist theories (such
as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience,
without comprehending the matter in a deep way?

*To these questions, I answer with complete confidence, that, in my opinion,***.***the right way exists, and that we are capable of finding it***Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics***Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those law-like connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena.***(The emphases in bold are mine.)***. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed.”*
I have reproduced this
Einstein quote in its entirety here because I wanted to capture the deep sense
of his thought process so that you can see that, in a very real way, TDVP is actually
a continuation along the same line of enquiry pursued by Albert Einstein. In
fact, I would state this view of reality even more strongly as follows:

**.***Mathematics is not just a tool invented by human beings for solving quantifiable problems. Pure mathematical thought is a true reflection of reality at its deepest level*
As for me, I reject the conclusions of mainstream
physicists like Bohr and Feynman, who proclaim that “quantum physics is just weird.
You can’t understand it, just accept that that’s the way it is and go on with the
practical application of its principles to technology.” I agree with Einstein
that the truth exists and we are capable of finding it.

In our first book together, “Reality Begins with
Consciousness” available at www.BrainVoyage.com,
Dr. Neppe and I introduced the concept of Lower-Dimensional Feasibility, Absent Falsification
(LFAF): the inclusion of concepts in scientific hypotheses that may not be
falsifiable in the 3S-1t domain. Our physical senses are not only severely
limited, detecting only very narrow ranges of energy, they do not reveal more
than three spatial dimensions and one moment in time, even though the existence
of additional dimensions is clearly required by both relativity and quantum
physics.

Mainstream science has gone astray because it has
taken the positivist approach too literally, confusing conceptual mathematical
tools with pure, or existential mathematics. By missing this distinction, scientists
have gone down the wrong path, continuing to apply infinitesimal calculus to
quantum reality, where it doesn’t apply, resulting in paradoxes and illogical
conclusions. Most scientists don’t even realize that ‘the calculus’ of Newton
and Leibniz is only one of a number of possible calculi, and most
mathematicians ignore the distinction between conceptual and existential
mathematics. In my next post, I will clarify these distinctions and show you
how the TDVP nine-dimensional model of space, time and consciousness explains
mass and gravity.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment